Blog Stats

The first phase of the so-called New Middle East was just after ‘the Summit of Peacemakers’ in 1996, when former Israeli premier Shimon Peres applied his New Middle East vision by declaring the “Operation Grapes of Wrath” on Lebanon for 16 days in April 1996.

During the 2006 Lebanon war, former US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced the beginning of the New Middle East. After almost one decade of political attempts to resolve the Arab- Israeli conflict, the US decided to use a brute force to eliminate what it saw an impediment to the ‘peaceful’ resolution of the conflict by pushing ‘Israel’ to attack Lebanon, destroying its infrastructures.

The first phase of the above mentioned project has fallen after the US-Israeli failure to impose their conditions for the 2006 ceasefire agreement on Lebanon. It was Lebanon which emerged victorious after a 33-day war, as declared by Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah. It was the resistance of Hezbollah that turned the table on the New Middle East project, said the Winograd Commission report, after the investigation of the causes of failure in the 2006 war.

In 2011, the second phase of the scheme has started, Syria was the battlefield. However, the US-backed terrorists failed to overthrow the Syrian government, and the second phase was over. Then, the old Shimon Peres vision was revitalized and there was the third phase of the so-called New Middle East project.

The US administration proposed an economic approach, allegedly to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict, in a bid to gain in politics what it couldn’t achieve in the war.

US President Donald Trump sent Jared Kushner, his son-in-law, who is presented as the godfather of the ‘Deal of Century’, to the region. Kushner decided to replace the well-known slogan of “land for peace” principle with his own one: “peace to prosperity”. He believes that such a slogan could reduce the conflict to an economic problem that can be resolved by improving the living standards of the Palestinians.

The absence of a draft solution for major political issues, particularly Palestinian statehood, the status of Al-Quds (Jerusalem), and the Palestinians’ right to return to their land, turns Kushner proposal to be a mere attempt to bribe the Palestinians into giving up self-determination.

The funding issue is also a significant factor of disruption for that deal, especially that EU, the traditional donor, did not participated in the workshop in Bahrain, neither Russia, nor China.

Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia, which has shown an extreme enthusiasm for the deal, has been already facing an economic problem and the war in Yemen, which has cost it billions of dollars. The US, where the proposal was launched, certainly would not spend that much money, particularly under Trump administration, who prides himself on extracting monetary concessions from other countries, including Saudi Arabia by extortion, or by the arm sales.

The development and prosperity that Kushner is heralding can only happen if the Israeli occupation is ended.

In contrast, the Trump administration has already made major steps in strengthening the pillars of the occupation, including recognizing Israeli annexation of Al-Quds and the Golan Heights.

With all these major flaws, it was hardly surprising that the Bahrain Workshop failed to jump-start the deal process.

The Axis of Resistance is accomplishing important steps in the warfare in Syria, Yemen and Iraq, preventing Trump and his allies to step forward for the announcement of the “Deal of Century” that could eradicate the Palestinian cause in favor of the Israeli occupation. Hence, the third phase of the New Middle east has also failed.

A flashback to Madrid conference in 1990: the peace process had been built on the principle of “land for peace”, where ‘Israel’ withdrew from occupied Arab land in 1967 in exchange for peace and normalization of ties with the Palestinians and Arabs.

The 1993 Oslo Accord provided a political vision for Shimon Peres’s plan – a two-state solution – which was followed by the 1994 Paris Protocol that established rules regulating economic relations between the Palestinians and Israelis.

This vision was also the core of the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative proposed by Saudi Arabia in Beirut Arab League summit.

Needless to say, all past proposals have failed for one simple reason: They were all in favor of the Israeli occupation of Palestine.

Kamel Hawwash: Trump’s Deal of the Century, A Mirage Already Rejected by Palestinians

TEHRAN (FNA)- Academic and activist Kamel Hawwash believes that Trump administration is “naïve” to think that Palestinians would accept his so-called Deal of the Century to end their struggle in return for “economic prosperity”.

Speaking in an exclusive interview with FNA, Kamel Hawwash shared his opinion with us that the status of the holy city of Jerusalem al-Quds and the issue of the Palestinian refugees are key issues that Trump administration has tried to take off the negotiation’s table.

According to the Palestinian academic, “Israel is the child of racist ideology of Zionism” which has been designed to “put the interests of the Jewish Zionists ahead of all others, including the indigenous Palestinians”.

Kamel Hawwash is a British-Palestinian engineering professor based at the University of Birmingham. Hawwash is a longstanding campaigner for justice, especially for the Palestinian people. He is the Chair of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) and a founding member of the British Palestinian Policy Council (BPPC).

FNA has conducted an interview with Kamel Hawwash about Israel’s brutal crackdown on Palestinian protesters, the Israeli legislation known as the nation state law and also Trump’s so-called deal of the century.

Below you will find the full text of the interview.

Q: It seems that killing scores of people and maiming thousands more over the past several months aren’t an indication of what Israel thinks is enough to keep Gaza in check. Do you think Israel’s deadly clamp down on Palestinian protesters is going to end anytime soon?

A: Ever since its inception in 1948 through violence and terror, Israel has treated the indigenous Palestinians as a lesser people than Jewish Israelis. It has systematically denied all the basic rights expected by any other people. This includes the right to self-determination and the right for Palestinian refugees, expelled in 1948 to return to their homes. Since March 2018, Palestinians in Gaza have been marching peacefully to demand a lifting of the illegal and immoral siege on the beleaguered strip and to be allowed to return peacefully to their homes. Instead of meeting their peaceful and legitimate demands, Israel met their protests with deadly fire, deploying tens of snipers that shoot to kill, sometimes at distances of hundreds of meters. Among the over 200 dead have been children, journalists and medics. There are no signs that the Great March of return will end soon or that Israel will stop attacking protesters at the Gaza fence.

Q: What do you think the protests known as the ‘Great March of Return’ have accomplished so far?

A: The protests have highlighted the plight of Palestinians in Gaza but also the unjust situation all Palestinians find themselves in, nearly 72 years after their dispossession and expulsion. The GMR has also shown the world that Palestinians are resilient. They will not give up on their cause, no matter what Israel and its allies do. On the same day as the United States opened its new Embassy in Jerusalem, against all international understandings and before the ‘deal of the century’ was announced, Palestinians marched to the Gaza fence in their tens of thousands. The murder by Israel of over 60 Palestinians has not broken them. Nine months after the start of the march, they continue to protest. The GMR has also shown the world that Palestinians across all political factions can come together to face the common enemy Israel, putting aside their differences. Israel’s violent response has exposed the brutality of the extremist regime governing what many see as a rogue state.

Q: How do you think the US and some Arab states are complicit in crimes against the Palestinians especially in light of the discreet links between Israel and Saudi Arabia and some other Persian Gulf states?

A: The US funds Israel to the tune of over $3 billion per annum. It also provides Israel with a de facto veto at the UN Security Council, shielding it from accountability. It also provides it with cover for its crimes against the Palestinians, claiming it is entitled to self-defense. As an occupying power, it is not entitled to self-defense. In fact, it is obligated to protect the people it occupies and to refrain from committing crimes against them including land theft and moving its civilians into these occupied areas.

Arab states have not acted in the best interests of the Palestinian people, and some have embarked on steps to normalize relations with what is effectively an Apartheid state that occupies Arab people. Not only have Israeli sports teams performed in [Persian] Gulf States, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu recently visited Oman, followed closely by other minster visiting Oman and the UAE.

Q: In July 2018, the so-called nation state law was adopted by Israeli Knesset. What do you think the legislation shows about the nature of the regime in Tel Aviv?

A: Israel is the child of racist ideology of Zionism. It was never designed to be anything but a state that put the interests of Jewish Zionists ahead of all others, including the indigenous Palestinians. Its policies discriminate against Palestinians, whether in Gaza, East Jerusalem or the rest of the West Bank. It also discriminates against the Palestinian citizens of Israel in all areas of life, while providing a facade that claims that it is a democracy for all. The adoption of the nation state law in July entrenches its racism and articulates its own form of Apartheid. It gives the right of self-determination only to Jews, provides every Jew around the world with a right to emigrate to it but denies the right of return to Palestinian refugees. It also sees the building and expansion of settlements as a national value. With this law, Israel basically challenged the world, saying ‘I am an apartheid state, what are you going to do about it’? The world has been silent, thus providing it with a continuation of the impunity it has enjoyed.

Q: Many believe that the continuing illegal Israeli settlement activities have hammered nail after nail into the coffin of a diplomatic solution. What do you think about that?

A: Anyone who visits the occupied territories comes away questioning whether Israel has any interest in peace based on international law. Most countries believe this will come through a two state solution. However, as the number of settlers moves onwards a million and hundreds of settlements are developed connected with settler only roads and with the Apartheid Wall built deep into the occupied territories, the ‘facts on the ground’ Israel is creating have ended any prospects of a two-state solution that would meet the basic needs of Palestinians whose leadership accepted a state on 22% of their historic homeland. That is not only damaging for the prospects of peace, it also places all the countries that continue to hold out for a two-state in difficulty as they have no alternative to that. However, calls for one democratic state for all inhabitants of historic Palestine appear to be increasing.

Q: The current administration in the US has been boasting about their new plan for Palestine and even calling it the deal of the century. What do you think would be in the new deal for the Palestinians?

A: The deal of the century seems to be a mirage. No details have emerged and it has been promised for a launch for months but with no firm date. The Palestinians have already rejected a US made plan after US President Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and moving the US embassy from Tel Aviv to the holy city. Jerusalem and the issue of the refugees are key final status issues that Trump has attempted to take off the negotiation’s table. With Netanyahu claiming Israel must have security control from the river Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea, there is very little that the ’deal of the century’ can compensate for exclusion of these issues from future negotiations. The deal is likely to focus on economic prosperity for Palestinians, which this naïve American administration thinks the Palestinians will accept to end their struggle. The Great March of Return has demonstrated that the Palestinians will continue to struggle, no matter what the cost until they attain their rights.

US president’s son-in-law and advisor Jared Kushner said that the upcoming ‘peace’ plan (“Deal of the Century”) will not include a two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, considering that it has not worked out during the previous rounds of talks.

Speaking at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Kushner said that the creative ideas must be suggested to reach a solution, rejecting to reveal more details.

So far, US has carried out some of the Deal of the Century’s dangerous stipulations by acknowledging Al-Quds as the capital of the Zionist entity and annexing Syria’s Golan to ‘Israel’. It also stopped aiding the United Nations relief agency for Palestinian refugees in preparation for naturalizing them in the host countries.

Kushner pointed out that Washington would mull annexing the Zionist settlements in the West Bank with the Israeli officials after the formation of their government.

أبريل 29, 2019

Long decades ago, the occupation was the strongest, it was said what was refused by the leaders who stick to the Arab rights especially the right of the Palestinians has become a dream after awhile, and the resolution of the division of Palestine which was not accepted by the Arabs has become an unattainable dream later. It is known that Israel does not accept such resolution and no one in the United Nations initiated to put an agenda to implement the resolution of division no 181 as the resolution dedicated to the return of the displaced no 194. And what would have issued due to the Arab acceptance is similar to what was issued by the Arab acceptance of the resolutions 242 and 338; the survival of the occupation and the rash towards peace. While Israel is Judaizing the land and devouring more geography, it strengthens itself in preparation for a war to come and to occupy new territories. The Arab acceptance of those resolutions does not prevent the occupation of Beirut and the South of Lebanon.

After the American announcement of the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and the annexation of Golan to Israel, there were who said similarly that if the Palestinians have accepted what was offered by Bill Clinton and Ehud Barak in 2000 as half or quarter of the Eastern Jerusalem, they would not have lost all Jerusalem today, and if Syria has accepted Golan without Tiberius, it would not have lost all Golan. Those do not forget to say the contradiction; While they are pretending that they highly appreciate the leading capacity of the late Palestinian President Yasser Arafat and the Late Syrian President Hafez Al-Assad, they refuse to admit that the rejection was made by them. Then they say that if they have known that before , they would not done so.

Let us discuss that, when the President Yasser Arafat accepted Oslo Accords, did the Israeli implement it? What was the result in areas A, B,and C, and when Syria accepted the Agreement of disengagement in 1974 as a temporary starting point for the withdrawal from Golan under American guarantee, did that happen/? when Lebanon accepted the resolution 425 and was seeking to implement it, did anyone respond? And when Washington signed the nuclear understanding with Iran, did it hesitate to withdraw from it? Therefore, will the American signing on the agreement on Golan prevent the withdrawal from it, since the American signing on the agreement of disengagement which is based on the recognition that Golan is Syrian did not prevent it from the recognition of the annexation of Golan to Israel. Therefore, the only constant is not what was not accepted by the Arabs to avoid the worse or a search for a peaceful solution or what is signed by the American or the Israeli, rather it is the balance of forces.

Jerusalem and Golan are under the occupation since 1967, and the talk about the annexation is a political interpretation of the occupation not an expression of the change in the balances of forces, it is an interpretation of the inability to got the Syrian-Palestinian recognition of the legitimacy of the occupation of Palestine as an inevitable cost of any understanding proposed by Washington and Tel Aviv. So those who forgot that the Syrian rejection of bargain in the time of the late President Hafez Al-Assad has led to balances of forces which contributed in the rise of the resistance forces which liberated the South of Lebanon and Gaza without negotiation and without the recognition of the legitimacy of occupation have to be reminded that the objection that prevented the incomplete return of Golan as Sinaa has fortified the resistance and ensured the complete return of the South of Lebanon and Gaza, and because time is not over, the resistance which led to these two successive liberations will soon liberate Golan and what is far from Golan and Gaza…Jerusalem as well,,, let days witness that.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu won a decisive victory yesterday. He is likely to carry on to a fifth term in office. As of this morning, the right-wing bloc has a clear advantage of 65 seats (out of 120) over the centre/left parties and seems more likely to form a coalition.

The meaning of yesterday’s election results are obvious and undeniable. The Israeli left is now marginal, verging on non-existent. The Israeli Labour party has been reduced to a miniature caricature, pretty much the size of Meretz, themselves a parody of left thinking. Needless to mention that these two parties are Zionist to the core. They deny the Palestinian right of return and believe in segregation between Jews and Arabs by means of a two-state solution.

Netanyahu is, beyond doubt, the most sophisticated player in the Israeli political theatre. In the weekend he vowed to annex the West Bank Settlements. By performing this election ploy, he managed to completely obliterate his hard-line rivals on the right such as Bennett-Shaked’s New Right and even Zehut, which promised to be a ‘rising political force.’ As for this morning neither Zehut nor Bennett, who promised his voters he would be the next Defence Minister, made it to the Knesset. Netanyahu has also managed to reduce the USA into a subservient colony. We saw President Trump working hard for his friend in Jerusalem, recognising Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights and castigating Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a ‘terror organisation’. But most significantly, Netanyahu is also Hamas’s favourite prime minister.

Hamas knows very well that Israeli centrist government are genocidal in their approach to Arabs and Palestinians in particular. Hamas remembers Ehud Olmert, Tzipi Livni and Ehud Barak. They clearly prefer Bibi. They know very well that Bibi has been anxious to operate in Gaza. Hamas knows very well that Israel is running out of military and political options, let alone solutions to the conflict. Hamas voted Bibi. It entered ceasefire negotiations with Israel just a few days before the election. There is good reason to believe that Hamas would prefer to deal with Netanyahu rather than with a ‘centrist’ party led by three war criminals. Hamas won again, it has pushed Israel into a state of further paralysis. Israel does not have a prospect of a future in the region. Israel may not be defeated by Quasam rockets but by its own Ghetto mentality.

Some of the more advanced Israel/Palestine commentators have agreed amongst themselves that the ‘one-state solution’ amounts to empty talk for the simple reason that Palestine is ‘one-state’ already: It has natural borders, one electric grid and even one international pre-dial number (+972). But this beautiful and historic land, stretched from the river to the sea, is dominated by a foreign and hostile ideology that is racially supremacist and vile towards the indigenous people of the land.

Some of those perceptive analysts have been bewildered following a peculiar shift in Israeli politics: while the so-called Israeli ‘Left’ has been advocating racial and ethnic segregation between Jews and Palestinians by adopting the two-state solution, it is actually the Zionist ultra-right that has been pushing constantly for an integration of the ‘land’ by means of Israeli annexation.

While very few within the Israeli Left joined the call for a one-state solution, it seems as if PM Benjamin Netanyahu and the entire Israeli Right are thrilled by the idea.

Netanyahu’s declaration shouldn’t take us by surprise. Two weeks ago, a Haaretz poll revealed that 42% of Israelis back West Bank annexation. Apparently, 16% of those polled support annexing the entire West Bank without giving any political rights to the Palestinians who live there. I guess that it is hard not to see the political reasoning behind PM Netanyahu’s promise to annex settlements. Netanyahu, who is likely to form the next Israeli government, is attempting to appeal to the Israeli ultra-right voters. He wants them to vote Likud on Tuesday rather than ‘wasting’ their vote on a small ultra-right party or another.

There is obviously a big difference between the one-state call that has been pushed by Palestinian solidarity activists and Netanyahu’s politics of annexation. While Palestinian rights advocates are referring to one democratic state, Netanyahu is not committed to democracy at all. He is solely faithful to the Jewish population and what he offers in practice is a ‘One Jewish State Solution.’ After all, Israel defines itself as ‘the Jewish State’ and it is there to serve one people while denying others their most elementary rights. Israel, as we know, is not a state of its citizens, it is a state of its Jewish citizens. By the time Israel comes to term with its sin and transcends into a state of its citizens regardless of their race, ethnicity or religious belief it will be renamed. It may as well be called Palestine.

Sorry “Israel” for being wrong all over your long years of occupation.

Sorry “Israel” for not being your killing machine.

Sorry “Israel”, two words that summarize the surrender of some Arab leaders to the “Israeli” entity.

A top Emirati minister surprised no body by his country’s stance. It was blatant as his rulers’ decision to dance on the scattered bodies in Sanaa. But history will not forgive and time will continue to draw the ugly faces of some Arab tyrants.

“The historical choice made by most Arab nations to freeze out ‘Israel’ was “very, very wrong,” UAE Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Anwar Gargash is quoted by the Abu Dhabi-based daily The National highlighting the importance of creating a divide between political issues and “lines of communication” with “Israel”.

“Many, many years ago, when there was an Arab decision not to have contact with “Israel”, that was a very, very wrong decision, looking back,” Gargash said.

“The strategic shift needs actually for us to progress on the peace front,” he added.

Alluding to a so-called “one-state solution”, he said: “What we are facing, if we continue on the current trajectory, I think the conversation in 15 years’ time will really be about equal rights in one state.”

“A two-state solution will no longer be feasible because a sort of reduced rump (Palestinian) state will no longer be practical,” Gargash concluded.